Photozone just posted a review of the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II lens. According to their resolution tests, this new "L" zoom lens at 24mm is even better than some of Canon's best primes. They admit that it is a very capable lens, but question the high asking price when compared to its predecessor and the competition.
Here is an excerpt from their conclusion:

"The Canon lens is capable of delivering an outstanding center sharpness even at f/2.8 and across the zoom range. There's certainly more "punch" (contrast) at max. aperture now. The border region reaches a very high quality level at 24mm - and that's without the high field curvature that plagued the mk I here. The high quality remains intact at 40mm. However, there's an almost surprising drop in border quality at 70mm with resolution figures that are inferior compared to the old version of the lens..."

Similar to the Nikon 24-70 optically it would seem. Very slightly better at the wide end, very slightly worse at the long end. Given the high regard for the Nikon 24-70, I would think this is a good review. I guess the price difference would be the main issue. Maybe the 82mm filter size.

I think the reason for most peoples disappointment is that they were expecting a 70-200 f2.8 II performance, but truth is that 70-200 is just a little easier to make then 24-70, so we still got a big improvement but because it started at a lower performance level (if you compare the older 70-200 2.8 v1 to the 24-70 f2.8 v1 which was a better performer optically ) then it needed a much bigger improvement jump to get to that level... and it just well... didn't
But if you compare the improvement form the 70-200 v1 to v2 vs. and the improvement of the 24-70 v1 vs. v2 I think we're getting a bigger improvement (with a larger price difference I must say) from the 24-70, but that is just my opinion which is only based on charts and reviews I read as I have not had the privilege of trying the 24-70 v2 yet

For landscape use where the usage is primarily stopped down (f8 or lower), I am finding it hard to justify this over the competition (Canon 24-105 and Tamron 24-70). Add in the need to get new filters, it is a serious move.

I tried the v1 a couple of times. Ran into the decentering issue both times, sent it to canon to get it fixed multiple times. Then gave up for the lighter and bigger zoom range of the 24-105.

Clearly for my use, f2.8 is not that important. For wedding shooters, it may be good option over v1 and tamron.

What distance do they use for testing, close or far? I find far more distortion at 70 mm than the 1.3% stated in the test. That is a bit odd. I also had the Tamron and was not able to obtain very sharp corners.

snapsy wrote:
If you compare the 24-70 II and Tamron 24-70 on PZ the Tamron looks to be very close (except @ 70mm where the Canon takes a large lead) ...and much cheaper...and with IS

They are close in term of sharpness but not so much in distortion especially @ 24 also vignetting is more pronounced with the Tamron
In general the Canon does everything (except IS) better, not by much, but still better.
Now there is no doubt the Tamron is the better value, but whoever is interested in the Canon isn't looking for the "best bang for the buck" but simply for the best

eyalha wrote:
They are close in term of sharpness but not so much in distortion especially @ 24 also vignetting is more pronounced with the Tamron
In general the Canon does everything (except IS) better, not by much, but still better.
Now there is no doubt the Tamron is the better value, but whoever is interested in the Canon isn't looking for the "best bang for the buck" just for the best

eyalha wrote:
They are close in term of sharpness but not so much in distortion especially @ 24 also vignetting is more pronounced with the Tamron
In general the Canon does everything (except IS) better, not by much, but still better.
Now there is no doubt the Tamron is the better value, but whoever is interested in the Canon isn't looking for the "best bang for the buck" but simply for the best

I agree with all your points. For me, the ability to shoot 50mm/70mm @ 1/10 hand-held with the Tamron's VC is what makes me more forgiving of the Tamron's shortcomings.

snapsy wrote:
I agree with all your points. For me, the ability to shoot 50mm/70mm @ 1/10 hand-held with the Tamron's VC is what makes me more forgiving of the Tamron's shortcomings.
Frankly, i really don't want to be shooting hand held even with IS at 1/10sec with a 22mpix camera. I don't think the sensor is as forgiving to hand holding at 1/10 sec - particularly when I've got a flash on a bracket and don't have time to take it off for the hand held shot.

Yakim Peled wrote:
The difference between this test and that of RC from LR is intriguing.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

There's always a bit of variation between our results - some of it the difference in comparing raw to jpgs, and every Imatest setup a bit different.

However, when I look at Klaus' numbers, rather than his opinion, it's a really good lens. Much better than 24-70 numbers, at 24mm very close to 24 TSE or f/1.4 at similar apertures. My results showed it a bit better, his a bit worse, but both are close.

For the person who compared it to the Nikon, that's a lot of variables: lens, camera, sensor mircrolenses, and if jpgs were used in the Imatest process, difference in in-camera post processing. To compare the Canon and Nikon, we'd really have to put both lenses on an optical bench.

Not sure why he says the Tamron is as good at the wide end when it takes the bad 24-70 II distortion and then takes it to truly hideous 24-105 levels and when it doesn't measure as sharp there, and now maybe these were not focused the same way and that can matter a lot so who knows, but look at the building on the right and trees at the left on these two samples and tell me the tamron doesn't clearly look worst 24mm:

it does seem the 24-70 II falls apart at 70mm more than the MTF implied, if it had to fall apart I'd rather it there, by a millions miles, than 24mm since we have never had a zoom that did the 24mm side of things very well on FF and we have amazing 70-200s and 70-300Ls for 70mm. Granted for $2300 and not say $1800 you'd think 70mm would be crazy too though and it is surprising that the CA is higher measured than on the tamron or old 24-70 (although on the sample image I swear the tamron CA looks worse to me....)

I thought the edge numbers would score even higher though since the MTF for it were better than for the 24 1.4 II.
And it's a bit shocking that it got lower extreme borders than the 16-35 II at 24mm vs 26mm f/8.

EDIT: oh interestingly I see on his chart where he measures borders and extreme, he is a very to the corners measuring guy so extreme is deep corners, some lenses can be stunning anywhere but there and the images still tend to look great (See tamron 17-50 2.8) and his borders not center border but getting closer to corner border so they themselves are already a very tough test and I think far more meaningful to the image quality than the extreme border measurements which tend to fall in a part of the image the eye tends to not ever get drawn to very much.

So I will go back and only pay attention to center and border scores and ignore extreme and see what it looks like....